I agree. She could have just as well asked God for a Mercedes Benz while she was at it!
But if this was intended to equate what I said about God having to approach us within the means of our constitution, then that was either a caricature of what I said or a big misunderstanding.
We don't hear things dogs can hear, so trying to communicate with us in frequencies dogs hear but we don't is pointless, just as it is pointless to communicate with us in a language we don't understand.
God has to communicate with us in ways we are equipped to process, and that's not diminishing God by making "man the measure " of God any more than soup is "making" itself a measure of man because we can drink it only with a spoon and not a fork. It's the way the world iseven if we don't understand it.
A person wanting to know God must first believe that He IS.
And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - Romans 1:28
But one, like Dawkins, who claims to be atheist but obsessively denies God obviously believes that God IS but deplores Him - otherwise he would be insane, i.e. hating someone he says does not exist.
God's Name is I AM.